Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • Supreme Court
  • SC Orders / Highlights
  • High Court
  • Appellate Tribunal
  • Tribunal / NCLT & Others
  • Appellate authority for Advance Ruling
  • Advance Ruling Authority
  • National Financial Reporting Authority
  • Competition Commission of India
  • ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  • Commission
  • Central Government
  • Board
  • DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court
  • Commissioner / Appellate Authority
  • Other
In Favour Of: New
---- In Favour Of ----
  • ---- In Favour Of ----
  • Assessee
  • In favour of Assessee
  • Partly in favour of Assessee
  • Revenue
  • In favour of Revenue
  • Partly in favour of Revenue
  • Appellant / Petitioner
  • In favour of Appellant
  • In favour of Petitioner
  • In favour of Respondent
  • Partly in favour of Appellant
  • Partly in favour of Petitioner
  • Others
  • Neutral (alternate remedy)
  • Neutral (Others)
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • Referred in >= 3 Cases
  • Referred in >= 4 Cases
  • Referred in >= 5 Cases
  • Referred in >= 10 Cases
  • Referred in >= 15 Cases
  • Referred in >= 25 Cases
  • Referred in >= 50 Cases
  • Referred in >= 100 Cases
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court.
Eg: Madhya Pradesh, Orissa, Hyderabad

Use comma for multiple locations.

AY/FY: New?
Enter only the year or year range (e.g., 2025, 2025–26, or 2025–2026).
Include Word: ?
Searches for this word in Main (Whole) Text
Exclude Word: ?
This word will not be present in Main (Whole) Text
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:

---------------- For section wise search only -----------------


Statute Type: ?
This filter alone wont work. 1st select a law > statute > section from below filter
New
---- All Statutes----
  • ---- All Statutes ----
  • Select the law first, to see the statutes list
Sections: ?
Select a statute to see the list of sections here
New
---- All Sections ----
  • ---- All Sections ----
  • Select the statute first, to see the sections list

Accuracy Level ~ 90%



TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2026
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1983
  • 1982
  • 1981
  • 1980
  • 1979
  • 1978
  • 1977
  • 1976
  • 1975
  • 1974
  • 1973
  • 1972
  • 1971
  • 1970
  • 1969
  • 1968
  • 1967
  • 1966
  • 1965
  • 1964
  • 1963
  • 1962
  • 1961
  • 1960
  • 1959
  • 1958
  • 1957
  • 1956
  • 1955
  • 1954
  • 1953
  • 1952
  • 1951
  • 1950
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
Sort By: ?
In Sort By 'Default', exact matches for text search are shown at the top, followed by the remaining results in their regular order.
RelevanceDefaultDate
TMI Citation
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

      Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      Show All SummariesHide All Summaries
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        whatsappJoin Channel
        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        2010 (7) TMI 631 - HC - Income Tax

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        -

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        High Court excludes excise duty & sales tax from turnover under sec 80HHC. Net agency commission for profit computation. Bad debts deductible without irrecoverability proof post-April 1, 1989. The High Court held that excise duty and sales tax should be excluded from the total turnover under section 80HHC of the Act, following Supreme Court ...
                      Cases where this provision is explicitly mentioned in the judgment/order text; may not be exhaustive. To view the complete list of cases mentioning this section, Click here.

                          High Court excludes excise duty & sales tax from turnover under sec 80HHC. Net agency commission for profit computation. Bad debts deductible without irrecoverability proof post-April 1, 1989.

                          The High Court held that excise duty and sales tax should be excluded from the total turnover under section 80HHC of the Act, following Supreme Court precedent. It was determined that only the net agency commission should be considered for computing "profits of business" under the same section. Additionally, the Court upheld the allowance of bad debts written off as a deduction without the need to establish irrecoverability post-April 1, 1989. Both appeals were dismissed, and the substantial questions of law were answered in favor of the assessee and against the Revenue in all issues.




                          Issues Involved:
                          1. Deduction of excise duty and sales tax from total turnover under section 80HHC of the Act.
                          2. Calculation of 90 percent of the agency commission for computing "profits of business" under section 80HHC of the Act.
                          3. Allowance of bad debt written off as a deduction.

                          Detailed Analysis:

                          1. Deduction of Excise Duty and Sales Tax from Total Turnover:
                          The first issue concerns whether excise duty and sales tax should be deducted when computing the total turnover under section 80HHC of the Act. The assessing authority initially included excise duty and sales tax in the total turnover, but the appellate authority and Tribunal reversed this decision. The High Court referred to the Supreme Court's judgment in CIT v. Lakshmi Machine Works [2007] 290 ITR 667 (SC), which clarified that excise duty and sales tax do not form part of the turnover as they are indirect taxes recovered by the assessee on behalf of the Government. The Court affirmed that these taxes should be excluded from the total turnover to make the formula under section 80HHC workable. Consequently, the question of law was answered against the Revenue and in favor of the assessee.

                          2. Calculation of 90 Percent of Agency Commission:
                          The second issue pertains to whether 90 percent of the gross or net agency commission should be considered for computing "profits of business" under section 80HHC. The Revenue argued for the gross commission, but the appellate authorities and Tribunal held that only the net commission should be considered. The High Court examined various judgments, including CIT v. Lakshmi Machine Works [2007] 290 ITR 667 (SC) and CIT v. K. Ravindranath Nair [2007] 295 ITR 228 (SC), which supported the view that only the net commission, after deducting expenses incurred to earn it, should be included in the profits of business. The Court emphasized that the charge under the Act is on income, profits, and gains, not on gross receipts. Thus, the findings of the appellate authorities were upheld, and the question of law was answered against the Revenue and in favor of the assessee.

                          3. Allowance of Bad Debt Written Off:
                          The third issue revolves around the allowance of bad debts written off as a deduction. The assessing authority disallowed the bad debt on the grounds that the assessee failed to prove it was a trade debt, it had become bad, and it was written off as irrecoverable. The appellate authorities reversed this decision, and the High Court referred to the Supreme Court's judgment in T. R. F. Ltd. v. CIT [2010] 323 ITR 397 (SC), which held that post-April 1, 1989, it is sufficient for the bad debt to be written off in the accounts of the assessee without needing to establish its irrecoverability. Therefore, the appellate authorities were justified in allowing the deduction, and the question of law was answered against the Revenue and in favor of the assessee.

                          Conclusion:
                          - Both appeals were dismissed, and no costs were awarded.
                          - The substantial questions of law were answered in favor of the assessee and against the Revenue in all issues.
                          Full Summary is available for active users!
                          Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.

                          Topics

                          ActsIncome Tax
                          No Records Found